Real Estate January 28, 2011 12:25 PM

Update: Bosche Building Repairs Start Soon

WCPerspective 54

Bids are in to stabilize and perform interior demolition work on the Bosche Building located at 918 Main Street. The City-owned building has had a growing hole in its roof for several years leading many to fear for the building's future. A $1.2 million ReStoreNY grant was obtained last year to conduct a Phase I environmental study, retain a structural consultant and start the selective demolition and stabilization work.

The City is currently preparing contracts for the work which is expected to start in earnest in April. Efforts to support the Main Street façade may start sooner. Stabilization work is anticipated to take three to four months to complete. It will involve securing the building's superstructure and bracing the outside walls.

Plans prepared by Carmina Wood Morris, PC call for the partial demolition of the existing 918 Main Street structure, which would allow for the complete reconstruction of the interior superstructure, including the 2nd, 3rd and 4th floor column grid, main structural components, floor joists and decking. The project further includes the restoration of all wall-bearing masonry supporting the floor and roof structure and parapets and the installation of a new structural roof system and insulated roof deck to support a single ply membrane roofing system.

The four-story, Richardsonian Romanesque masonry building is located in the Allentown Historic Preservation District south of Allen Street. It is a former carriage factory built in the 1880's and designed by Cyrus K. Porter, a well-known Buffalo architect.

Greenleaf & Co. was given designated developer status for the property. The developer's plan is to combine 918 Main Street with its adjacent property next door to create 18-19 upper floor apartments and first floor commercial space. New exit stairways will be constructed in the 916 Main building to accommodate egress from all floors and an elevator will be installed in 918 Main to provide access to all floors. The first floor will be comprised of a main lobby for the residential component and additional commercial space.

Get Connected: Carmina Wood Morris, 716.842.3165

Greenleaf & Co., 716.885.8538

View image

Comments

54 Comments Leave a comment

Chris

January 28, 2011 12:07 PM

Condos for medical professionals. This place could really be a gem!

[ Reply ]

Score: 4 ( 8 votes )

grad94

January 28, 2011 12:13 PM

yahoooooooo! great news for main street and allentown!

[ Reply ]

Score: 3 ( 5 votes )

Travelrrr

January 28, 2011 12:16 PM

Wouldn't it be great if the city started to act strategically on these buildings, and not allow them to sit "for two years" with a giant hole in the roof? Think how much they, and future owners, would save if they forced themselves, and developers, to patch up windows, roofs, etc. A few more preventative measures would go a long, long way.

This is great news nonetheless.

[ Reply ]

Score: 9 ( 15 votes )

SevenOneSix

January 28, 2011 12:28 PM

I walk by this every day after work. I noticed a couple weeks back that the scaffolding that had been out front was gone, so thanks for the update! Hopefully this will be a cornerstone project for this intersection. Bring people downtown again, you need residential and good demographics before business and retail can thrive. These projects are great to see, especially so close to the BNMC.

[ Reply ]

Score: 2 ( 2 votes )

Armchair MBA

January 28, 2011 12:28 PM

Great news.

[ Reply ]

Score: 1 ( 1 votes )

benfranklin

January 28, 2011 12:43 PM

I had some business yesterday that took me through Albion and Medina. The main streets of these two towns are really very, very nice (architecturally), with most of the storefronts occupied.

While I'm all for these buildings on Main being rehabbed, it's not really the role that government should be playing. We don't need gimmicks and tax incentives....what we need is a more vibrant private sector, creating jobs, and occupying buildings like these.

[ Reply ]

Score: 3 ( 11 votes )

Chris

January 28, 2011 1:18 PM

The guy that first developed Brooklyn Brownstones (Greg O'Connell) in the early '90's bought up much of Mount Morris and is working to restore their Main St. People were surprised that places like barber shops and small stores would reopen again in a town where walmart dominates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/nyregion/12morris.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=mount%20morris&st=cse

[ Reply ]

replied to benfranklin

Score: 1 ( 3 votes )

whatever

January 28, 2011 2:30 PM

ben>"It's not really the role that government should be playing. We don't need gimmicks and tax incentives"

I agree. If this building is to be saved, it should happen using voluntary donations from people who believe in the cause for its own sake, or using investments from people who believe it can eventually be profitable (or any combination of those two).

[ Reply ]

replied to benfranklin

Score: -1 ( 9 votes )

BurchJP

January 28, 2011 3:20 PM

If that was the case nothing in Buffalo would ever get done.

[ Reply ]

replied to whatever

Score: -2 ( 6 votes )

Armchair MBA

January 28, 2011 5:02 PM

I could go along with this as long as subsidy programs that drive other development are also ended.

[ Reply ]

replied to whatever

Score: 2 ( 2 votes )

pampiniform

January 28, 2011 5:19 PM

What exactly are these subsidies you're talking about, MBA? I mean specific examples, not just a blanket statement.

[ Reply ]

replied to Armchair MBA

Score: -2 ( 2 votes )

Armchair MBA

January 28, 2011 6:24 PM

Off the top of my head: the home mortgage interest deduction, FHA, utility and drainage construction, and numerous highway bills.

[ Reply ]

replied to pampiniform

Score: 2 ( 6 votes )

pampiniform

January 28, 2011 6:43 PM

Well, I suppose you mean that they should only be restricted in the suburbs. The federal home deduction also applies in the city, and the FHA makes loans there as well. And if the bulk of taxpayer money and political power in this area are located out in the suburbs (look at the census data). If the people wo live out there want highways, utlities,and drainage issues, they're going to get them.
I'm not arguing sprawl is a good thing, but that is the reality of the way it works here and everywhere else in the country.

[ Reply ]

replied to Armchair MBA

Score: -1 ( 5 votes )

Armchair MBA

January 28, 2011 8:11 PM

Pampinform>" Well, I suppose you mean that they should only be restricted in the suburbs. The federal home deduction also applies in the city, and the FHA makes loans there as well. "

Homeownership, made artificially cheap by a laundry list of subsidies, has clearly driven demand for lower density, sprawl development. Take away these programs and you will likely see a much more compact development pattern.

I'm just saying if we are going to be critical of subsidies providing incentives for inner city development, we should also call into question public programs that drive development in other parts of town. It's only fair

[ Reply ]

replied to pampiniform

Score: 2 ( 2 votes )

BurchJP

January 29, 2011 10:37 AM

You are a real homer you know that. The price of cheap land (because there is more of it) keeps the price of living in the Suburbs down. If you believe anything else you are just really misinformed.

[ Reply ]

replied to Armchair MBA

Score: 0 ( 2 votes )

Armchair MBA

January 29, 2011 11:04 AM

Thank you for the kind words.

Burch> " The price of cheap land (because there is more of it) keeps the price of living in the Suburbs down."

That's it huh? Cheap land is the one and only factor that drives the current large lot single, sprawl development pattern? Anybody who disagrees with this laughably simplistic assessment should be dismissed as "misinformed" or a "homer?"

It would be interesting if that "cheap" land would be developed the way it is without being easily accessible from taxpayer build roads. It would also be interesting to see how many people could afford this type of housing without government backed 30 year mortgages. Furthermore, it is doubtful that there would be as much demand for new high end housing that people "trade up" to without tax incentives that reward purchasing expensive homes.

[ Reply ]

replied to BurchJP

Score: 0 ( 2 votes )

suburban_hillbilly

January 28, 2011 3:37 PM

Medina and Albion are rural suburbs. How dare you mention them on BRO! They are evil places where the inhabitants drive cars and own land! Your comeparison is offensive!

[ Reply ]

replied to benfranklin

Score: 3 ( 9 votes )

January 28, 2011 1:09 PM

Good news it's being saved but I agree it shouldn't have been left to sit for so long. That's not just a hole in the roof it's a tree growing from the 1st or 2nd floor.

[ Reply ]

Score: 1 ( 1 votes )

STEEL

January 28, 2011 1:35 PM

Look at that beautiful new roof on the Red Jacket building!

[ Reply ]

Score: 4 ( 6 votes )

Buffalo_Resurrection

January 29, 2011 8:13 AM

Steel,

I was reading the blogs wondering if anyone had noticed the new roofing membrane next door!

I agree, the completed work looks very nice and a compliment to the contractor.

[ Reply ]

replied to STEEL

Score: 2 ( 2 votes )

BurchJP

January 28, 2011 1:58 PM

Lol, there really is a tree growing out of the roof. Some great points by CHRIS about lofts for medical professionals. We should be trying to lure them DT by any means possible. How about "giving" an abandoned house to people and making them sign a contract to invest 100K into the rehab. Also give it to them tax free for 5 years? I even agree with TRAVELRRR, the city should strategically start trying to get medical professionals to move downtown. Take every property in the first block closest to the Medical Campus and give it away. Then move to the next furthest away. Strategic planning is the way to go. Same thing Ive been saying about Canal Side and the Main St bridge. We need dense development. That is the one and only way to get DT back on its feet. Its cool that people are doing their own projects but they pick and choose random locations. We need to develop 1-3 square miles at at time.

[ Reply ]

Score: 4 ( 6 votes )

tom.wonderful

January 28, 2011 2:22 PM

Great news indeed! Now if they could clear out the Red Jacket and all four corners of Allen and North Pearl. Until then that end of Allen will always be shabby and run down looking.

[ Reply ]

Score: 2 ( 4 votes )

derby98

January 28, 2011 7:06 PM

This is thumbs up to those that feel old buildings are not salvageable, Mr. Carr.

You could eat off that Red Jacket roof.

[ Reply ]

Score: 4 ( 4 votes )

pampiniform

January 28, 2011 8:04 PM

Well for one, the city doesn't have that kind money, and if they did, they'd have a lot of other places they'd have to spend it. And do you think that the city could do a good job restoring any of these things? The state doesn't have any money either, as that whole business with them talking about laying off thousands of state workers points towards. Nobody in the private sector is stepping up to save these things. Why should the public sector spend taxpayer money on something that there is no real demand for? How would that boost the economy anyway?

[ Reply ]

Score: 1 ( 7 votes )

Armchair MBA

January 28, 2011 8:14 PM

But it's okay to subsidize suburban development?

[ Reply ]

replied to pampiniform

Score: -3 ( 7 votes )

pampiniform

January 28, 2011 8:21 PM

Well where does that money come from to subsidize suburban development then anyway? Does it fall out of the sky? No, it's taxpayer money, and people that pay more taxes get more services out of it. I know you don't like it, but that's how it works.

[ Reply ]

replied to Armchair MBA

Score: 1 ( 3 votes )

Sean Brodfuehrer

January 28, 2011 10:14 PM

So how did the first suburbs and highways and all that infrastructure get built in the first place? On the backs of the federal government and the mother cities that thought these new places were going to cooperate in the economic and social prosperity of the whole city (region), HA sure showed them!

Take a look at this picture of Erie county:

http://www.erie.gov/aerials/1920s/atlases/book8/html/b8_g26.html

All those roads, all those new services, power, sewer, schools, police, fire, post offices, government buildings pretty much being built all at once. By who? The farmers that used to be there? It was a huge shift in public policy and big dollar investment by the federal government that produced these places. It wasn't some market driven force, but a guided government investment.

I don't have anything against the reasons for suburban development in the first place, environmentally and socially short sighted at it might have been. Industrial cities were not the best places back then crowded, polluted, worn. The issue I have is that people now, look back at the city with chide remarks and no historical perspective. That somehow they did it themselves and screw them, which is total BS. Sure now that everything was built for you, it's easy to say look how great things are but that was not the perspective that brought about that development. The suburbs were built as part of the larger concept of a city, that they did instead was put up social walls and divorced themselves and looked inwards only to their own goals instead of those of the region as a whole.

[ Reply ]

replied to pampiniform

Score: 6 ( 8 votes )

Mike Duff

January 29, 2011 8:42 AM

World Wars I and II sure changed a lot of things for America. If we didn't have WWII and if we weren't concerned about quickly mobilizing forces from place to place then the highways may not have been built and the suburbs may not exist like they do today. I am thankful for the national defense of our country and the incredible highway systems that we take advantage of every day.

I have lots of friends visit from Europe and Asia and they are in awe of our highways. We can get from New York to Florida in one day, that same distance can take many days to travel by car in other countries. Yes, they do have trains but as anyone who travels knows, there is nothing like having a car with you when you travel.

[ Reply ]

replied to Sean Brodfuehrer

Score: 0 ( 4 votes )

BurchJP

January 29, 2011 10:43 AM

Thanks for the history lesson that everyone on here already knows, but that comment stunk's of a huge inferiority complex.

[ Reply ]

replied to Sean Brodfuehrer

Score: -1 ( 3 votes )

Armchair MBA

January 29, 2011 11:14 AM

Burch>" Thanks for the history lesson that everyone on here already knows..."

If everybody knows this why do some still ignore the role public policy and spending decisions have on development and decline? If you already knew what SBrof said about massive federal programs initiating and sustaining low-density, outward development why would you cite "cheap land" as the cause of this earlier?

[ Reply ]

replied to BurchJP

Score: -1 ( 1 votes )

BurchJP

January 29, 2011 11:50 AM

...........because with out cheap land none of it would have been possible.

[ Reply ]

replied to Armchair MBA

Score: 0 ( 2 votes )

Sean Brodfuehrer

January 30, 2011 9:00 AM

It's not a complex, the city has plenty of it's own issues to figure out. It is more of a pet peeve of hypocrites who think because the government subsidized and built their town it is somehow bad for it to help repair the one left behind. It's justifiable to spend government money to develop the suburbs but not justifiable to spend money to revitalize the city.

[ Reply ]

replied to BurchJP

Score: 1 ( 5 votes )

BurchJP

January 30, 2011 9:10 AM

You're are so full of it. The City of Buffalo didnt build Cheektowaga, Williamsville, Tonawanda, Lancaster, and Clarence. Those towns built themselves through growth and taxex. More people relocated to these areas, and they were taxed which raised revenue for these projects.

[ Reply ]

replied to Sean Brodfuehrer

Score: 0 ( 4 votes )

Armchair MBA

January 29, 2011 8:26 AM

Pampinform> "Well where does that money come from to subsidize suburban development then anyway? Does it fall out of the sky? No, it's taxpayer money..."

Couldn't the same argument be used to defend making buildings with "no real demand" useful again? If we are using taxpayer money that makes it okay right?

[ Reply ]

replied to pampiniform

Score: 1 ( 3 votes )

pampiniform

January 29, 2011 12:17 PM

MBA>Couldn't the same argument be used to defend making buildings with "no real demand" useful again? If we are using taxpayer money that makes it okay right?

Taxpayer money gets spent on things that the people who pay most of the taxes benefit from. That's what I was arguing. I don't even see how you can try to equate my argument with what you're saying there. I'm sure a lot of taxpayers would rather see their money go towards things that directly affect them, like good roads, schools, emergency services, in other words the things that the government should be doing with their money.

[ Reply ]

replied to Armchair MBA

Score: 1 ( 1 votes )

Armchair MBA

January 30, 2011 7:56 AM

Pampinform>" I'm sure a lot of taxpayers would rather see their money go towards things that directly affect them, like good roads, schools, emergency services, in other words the things that the government should be doing with their money."

Who can argue with that? But "good roads, schools, emergency services" doesn't necessarily equate to subsidized homeownership, unnecessary settlement of rural areas, and other sprawl subsidies.

If you and who you claim to be "a lot of taxpayers" want this living environment, you should pay for it without public assistance. However, as long as the govt is in the sprawl business, historic rehab incentives in the city and older burbs can help counter the effect of artificially enhanced demand on the outskirts

[ Reply ]

replied to pampiniform

Score: -2 ( 2 votes )

BurchJP

January 30, 2011 9:08 AM

Give me a list of all the "public assistance" that the suburbs receive and the city doesnt.

[ Reply ]

replied to Armchair MBA

Score: 0 ( 4 votes )

Armchair MBA

January 30, 2011 12:50 PM

You mean in addition to those listed by Sean B?

We'll go one at a time.

The home mortgage interest deduction.

Although this is available to every homeowner it is largely claimed by wealthier households who tend to live in the burbs. This when combined with other subsidies (highways, utilities, etc) drives the housing "market" to large lot singles in sprawl country by making it an investment for people to "trade up" to more opulent homes when theirs become "dated." This is one of the reasons why there is still (higher end) new construction and correlating abandonment in wny even though the region is not growing.
In other words, the general public is subsidizing much of the new construction in the region which is available to a small, privileged portion of the market.

Burch> "I would rather see my taxes go for a business relocating in the suburbs rather than paying for a poor person to heat their house in the wintertime."

Now we are getting somewhere. If you prefer scarce public resources being spent towards expanding the sprawl landscape, just say so. Just don't pretend this "development" is purely the work of "market forces" when it is obviously driven by public policy.

[ Reply ]

replied to BurchJP

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

BurchJP

January 30, 2011 1:34 PM

I love how you say "we will go one at a time". Then you only give one, and it doesnt even meet the criteria I asked for. I said "ones the suburbs get, that the city does not". Your arguments are weak, just because at the end of the year I get back 100 more dollars than a city dweller would, and I pay 4500 dollars in taxes, compared to someone in the city who may pay 2500 that makes my lifestyle subsidized? You've gotta be off your rocker old man. Plus you say utilities are subsidized, how so? Also to your point about "public assistance". Lets compare per capita how many residents in the city get "public assistance" compared to how many in the suburbs get "public assistance". Toss another one of your points out the window as far as schools go. Its a commom misconception that the City Schools dont get more money than the suburban schools do. Let me toss a few figures out at you.....

Cost per pupil
Williamsville: 13,519
Buffalo: 17,004

Total Population
Williamville: 65,174
Buffalo: 280,199

Median Household Income
Williamsville: $65,300
Buffalo: 30,614

.....So your telling me that Buffalo which has rought two thirds more students that Williamsville, and spends 4k more per student, and has a house hold income of less than half pays for all of their students to go to school with out a LARGE chuck (over 80%) funding from the state you are absolutely crazy. Here's a question for you since you are complaining about the wealthy/middle class in the suburbs. Who do you think pays that 80% of state funding for Buffalo Schools? Ill help you out, its the suburbanites all across the state who pay higher mortgage tax, income tax, and actually create jobs that do. So save your inferiority complex for another debate.

[ Reply ]

replied to Armchair MBA

Score: 2 ( 2 votes )

Armchair MBA

January 31, 2011 6:44 AM

Burch> "I love how you say "we will go one at a time". Then you only give one..."

Yes hence "one at a time" or one per comment. Was that really that hard for you to figure out?

I could list more sprawl subsidies but you would just complain that they don't meet your irrelevant "criteria."

Burch> "Plus you say utilities are subsidized, how so?"

Water and sewage are public utilities. When they are installed in a town that does not yet have the population to support the cost, the money comes from the region at large. You did't think these things installed themselves did you?

Burch> "Its a commom misconception that the City Schools dont get more money than the suburban schools do. Let me toss a few figures out at you....."

It seems as if you are trying to steer the conversation away from the role of public policy in creating and sustaining sprawl development to a fight over the city getting more public assistance than the burbs. I made no such claim so have fun arguing with yourself.

I will say that the city did not receive the same benefit from postwar housing and development programs as the suburban areas did. Also, school funding, poverty spending, and programs dealing with inner city abandonment are the result of the void left by other policies which drove people away from the city and more recently, older burbs. That was the point I was making with my first comment that rehab credits would not be needed as much if we did not spend taxpayer money to sprawl our population outward.

[ Reply ]

replied to BurchJP

Score: -2 ( 2 votes )

bobbycat

January 31, 2011 8:26 AM

@Armchair> How were the utilities and sewers built in the city? Through private donation? Who is going to pay to repair and replace the aging sewers in the city of Buffalo? Would you prefer that bill to just go to city residents, or would you like Erie County, NY, and the Federal Gov't to chip in too?

[ Reply ]

replied to Armchair MBA

Score: 1 ( 1 votes )

BurchJP

January 30, 2011 9:14 AM

True, I would rather see my taxes go for a business relocating in the suburbs rather than paying for a poor person to heat their house in the wintertime.

[ Reply ]

replied to pampiniform

Score: -4 ( 6 votes )

Pegger

January 29, 2011 3:19 AM

Without having either been there or having a valid historical perspective and undersanding of urban history, it is easy to fall into the urban/suburban debate. I can remember when Buffalo was maxed out: industrial, filthy, over-crowded, noisy, and unpleasant. The suburbs became very attractive to those who could afford it. Yes, there was the GI Bill and other gov't incentives, but the devolopment was driven by powerful market forces. People maintained a regional perspective(like still shopping and working in the city). The burbs were economically, socially and culturally intrisically tied to the city. The thought of Amherst becoming a viable place was questionable as many saw it as a distant swamp literally made of clay and home to flies and other pests.

The concept of separate and better came later. By then, the city had entered a rapid decline. The emmigration to the suburbs and out of the region as a whole happened concurrently. That contributed heavily to the abandonment of these buildings and more poorly constucted homes (like the East Side. As people moved out of WNY, there were enough people to occupy the vacancies left behind.

It is much more complex than this. Demand is a powerful market force. And the suburbs were marketed well! As were automobiles!

[ Reply ]

Score: 2 ( 2 votes )

bobbycat

January 30, 2011 9:58 AM

@Pegger > Great comment, but please don't try to bring up the negative aspects of our industrial past. We would rather blame the suburbs for all that is wrong with Buffalo instead of recalling the soot that would cling to our houses or the fact that you could tell which area of the city you were in by the way it smelled. No one on here wants to remember that, they just want to pretend that everything was great before greed sent the companies to Mexico and China. They want to think of Buffalo as a beautiful urban utopia where everyone walked to work and whistled on their way home until the big bad government subsidized new houses in the suburbs that took all the people away. No one wants to think that Buffalo could have remained more viable than it is but we didn't plan ahead. Like the turtle and the hare, Buffalo got complacent and lost the race.

Facts and history lessons won't change the stubborn mindset of so many on this blog. They want to think of themselves as victims of the great suburban conspiracy and no one will break them of that mentality.

[ Reply ]

replied to Pegger

Score: 4 ( 6 votes )

Armchair MBA

January 30, 2011 12:55 PM

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that many people did not share the desire to flee the city in spite of numerous subsidies encouraging them. Not saying Pegger's take is wrong but it is only one side of the coin.

Bobbycat> "Facts and history lessons won't change the stubborn mindset of so many on this blog."

Want to talk about stubborn people who overlook facts and history? There are plenty of people on this site who think 30 year mortgages, a nationalized road system, and public infrastructure magically fell from the sky in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[ Reply ]

replied to bobbycat

Score: -1 ( 1 votes )

pampiniform

January 30, 2011 2:09 PM

Sure there were some people who stayed in the city. But unfortunately it turned out to be a lot fewer than those who chose to leave the city or area.

I'm not srguing that sprawl is necessarily a good thing, but people are free to do what they want in this country if they have the money. The FHA makes it easier for certain borrowers to get loans from private lending institutions by insuring the lending institution against loss in case the borrower defaults. It is active heavily in the central cities and among certain minority groups. Read this if you don't believe me:
http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/governmentprograms/monroe_w02-4.pdf
So you've already said we should get rid of the FHA loan insurance because it's a subsidy for the suburbs, never mind that it helps a lot of the people buying houses in the inner city. I'm sure any one who wants to get a mortgage to buy a house in anything other than the suburbs will have a really easy time in the absence of FHA loans.

[ Reply ]

replied to Armchair MBA

Score: 1 ( 1 votes )

Armchair MBA

January 31, 2011 6:54 AM

Policy inflated homeownership, combined with other sprawl subsidies,(interest deduction, infrastructure etc) drives demand for single family homes giving an advantage to suburban areas over a city filled with duplexes and apartments.

Pampinform> " It(FHA) is active heavily in the central cities and among certain minority groups."

Keep this within the context of recent history. Prior to being "active in central cities" they actively contributed to their decline by steering money away from areas deemed "risky."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

"...the practice called "redlining" began with the National Housing Act of 1934, which established the Federal Housing Administration (FHA).[10] The federal government contributed to the early decay of inner city neighborhoods by withholding mortgage capital and making it difficult for these neighborhoods to attract and retain families able to purchase homes."

[ Reply ]

replied to pampiniform

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

bobbycat

January 31, 2011 8:22 AM

@Armchair> These programs benefit everyone who can take advantage of them. The folks in the city have the same access to mortgages as those in the suburbs. Redlining did exist at one time, but it has been kept in check by the Fair Housing Act, the Community Reinvestment Act, the Truth in Lending Act, and several other pieces of legislation. These same pieces of legislation also contributed to the mortgage crisis and the recession.

It is actually easier to get a mortgage for a home in the city than one in the suburbs due to these acts. Especially for minorities and lower income candidates.

[ Reply ]

replied to Armchair MBA

Score: 1 ( 1 votes )

bobbycat

January 31, 2011 6:56 AM

@Armchair> No believes that these things just fell from the sky, and no one should believe that they were created in a vacuum. These things were created for a reason. These reasons have been covered many times, so in brief:

-Highways were created primarily for national defense and interstate commerce. Contrary to your beliefs, they were not created just to benefit the rich and punish the poor. Review your history of the failures of the rail lines in Europe during WWII and you might understand why this was so important in the 1950s.

- Public infrastructure is just that, public. It was funded by the public when it was built in the cities and it was publicly funded when it was expanded in smaller towns. Please remember that many of the towns that you consider sprawl predate many areas of the City of Buffalo.

- Home ownership is part of the American Dream and is considered one of the best means for improving and securing personal wealth. This is so important that Bill Clinton mentioned it many times in his first term as President and loosened mortgage regulations to expand home ownership to lower income Americans. 30 year mortgages were designed to help Americans, not punish the cities that were once predominantly owned by landlords who would arbitrarily jack up rents or evict tenants based on any number of factors.

These programs were designed to help, but like any government program (welfare, medicaid), there can be a downside if not managed well.

[ Reply ]

replied to Armchair MBA

Score: 1 ( 1 votes )

impressingagent

January 30, 2011 7:59 AM

this project puts the pope back in hope.

[ Reply ]

Score: -1 ( 1 votes )

rubagreta

January 31, 2011 6:29 AM

Lots of families left Buffalo (and other cities) because of forced school busing. Instead of junior walking to school, now he had to sit on a bus for 30 minutes to go to a school in a dangerous neighborhood.

Never ceases to amaze me. Instead of concentrating on improving the minority schools, the left thought that black kids would become smart by sitting next to white kids.

Oh well.

[ Reply ]

Score: -1 ( 3 votes )

bobbycat

January 31, 2011 8:16 AM

@Rubagreta> "Never ceases to amaze me. Instead of concentrating on improving the minority schools, the left thought that black kids would become smart by sitting next to white kids."

You are absolutely right. This is the same thing that STEEL, Armchair, and Blackrocklifer say all the time. The Buffalo Schools would be better if you just added more affluent white kids to the mix to show the black kids how to succeed. That is basically their argument. Instead of trying to fix the issues with the schools and families we would prefer to blame the successful schools for the problems with the unsuccessful ones. This is the same logic that blames the wealthy for the choices of the poor. They blame the banks for individuals getting in over their head in debt. There is no need for personal accountability if there is someone else to blame.

[ Reply ]

replied to rubagreta

Score: 0 ( 2 votes )

BuffaloBacker

January 31, 2011 1:09 PM

As a member of the City of Buffalo Preservation Board (the following comments are my personal views and not necessarily those of the Board) I was excited and hopeful when plans were presented and approved to save and rehab the Bosche Building for adaptive re-use. This section of Main Street has experienced considerable re-investment in recent years and the loss of this building to the urban landscape would have been tragic. Successful redevelopment of the Bosche Building will be a "win win win" for the City, developer and community. Unfortunately, it took considerable building decay, public safety issues and pressure from the public and preservationists to provoke action by City Hall. The current administration seems to lack vision regarding the economic and quality of life impacts historic preservation has on the City. The City needs to be more diligent in forcing property owners to invest in their properties rather than allowing for continued decay and ultimately emergency demolition. Hopefully saving the Bosche Building will be proof to the current administration that even in tough economic times there is a viable alternative to demolition through neglect.

[ Reply ]

Score: 2 ( 2 votes )

greenArcht

February 3, 2011 3:37 PM

Thanks for getting us back on topic, BuffaloBacker - and you make excellent points, btw. I agree that the City really dropped the ball with this building, as it has many times before.

Any developer with half a brain recognizes the value of building or renovating within walking distance of BNMC. The location of this building couldn't be better in that respect. So, I for one am not having a hissy fit because they are using Restore NY grants to generate jobs and restore a piece of this neighborhood. Well worth the investment.

[ Reply ]

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )